American Society of Hirudotherapy

When Direct Oral Anticoagulants Should Not Be Standard Treatment: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

Review published in Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2024)

Last Updated: June 18, 2026Reviewed by: ASH Editorial Board
Research article — evidence reviewArticle reference
Evidence: Narrative reviewClinical TrialsDrug DevelopmentBejjani et al. · Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2024

Abstract

For most patients, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and for venous thromboembolism treatment. However, randomized controlled trials suggest that DOACs may not be as efficacious or as safe as the current standard of care in conditions such as mechanical heart valves, thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, and atrial fibrillation associated with rheumatic heart disease. DOACs do not provide a net benefit in conditions such as embolic stroke of undetermined source. Their efficacy is uncertain for conditions such as left ventricular thrombus, catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis, and for patients with atrial fibrillation or venous thrombosis who have end-stage renal disease. This paper provides an evidence-based review of randomized controlled trials on DOACs, detailing when they have demonstrated efficacy and safety, when DOACs should not be the standard of care, where their safety and efficacy are uncertain, and areas requiring further research.

Abstract sourced from PubMed (NCBI) for the cited record. See the original publication for the authoritative version.

Publication typeJournal ArticleReviewResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov'tResearch Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Indexed MeSH termsHumansAdministration, OralAnticoagulantsAtrial FibrillationThrombosisVenous ThromboembolismVenous ThrombosisVitamin KRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Summary

For most patients, direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are preferred over vitamin K antagonists for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation and for venous thromboembolism treatment. However, randomized controlled trials suggest that DOACs may not be as efficacious or as safe as the current standard...

Why This Matters for Hirudotherapy

This review examines evidence from randomized controlled trials to identify clinical scenarios where direct oral anticoagulants may not be efficacious or safe, including mechanical heart valves, thrombotic antiphospholipid syndrome, and atrial fibrillation associated with rheumatic heart disease. It also highlights conditions where DOAC efficacy is uncertain, such as left ventricular thrombus, catheter-associated deep vein thrombosis, and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis. The abstract contains no mention of leeches, hirudotherapy, leech-derived anticoagulants, or alternative or localized anticoagulant approaches. There is no defensible connection to ASH's domain, as the focus is exclusively on evaluating oral pharmaceutical agents and their clinical limitations.

Citation

When Direct Oral Anticoagulants Should Not Be Standard Treatment: JACC State-of-the-Art Review.

Bejjani et al. · Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2024

Added to ASH library: May 28, 2026 · Site last updated: June 18, 2026

This website provides educational information and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. Medicinal leech therapy carries clinically meaningful risks and should be performed only by qualified clinicians under institutionally approved protocols. FDA 510(k) clearance for medicinal leeches is limited to specific indications; investigational and off-label discussions are labeled accordingly. For patient-specific guidance, consult a qualified healthcare provider.